\subsection{Lectures}

We found the lectures were first and foremost good. The lecturer did succeed in mediating his passion and commitment to the subject of the course while still giving a humble approach. 
The lecturer seem to understand the importance of pedagogy, and how to speak with his students for the students sake and not his own. This I found is very rare in the lecturers at LTH.
Even if he did not always succeed in his pedagogy you could quite clearly understand that he was trying and that made us students more motivated to learn about the subject. 
In general the lectures was a good introduction of the techniques and the understanding of the subject.\\

Some suggestions of improvements:

\begin{enumerate}
\item  The way the lecturer had chosen to use the PowerPoint, there was too much text on the PowerPoint slides. We feel that he should use PowerPoint as a tool that complements the lecture and not takes over the lecture.

\item  Do not switch between english/swedish so frequently

\item  The lectures felt a bit stressed, like it was too much to teach and too little time. It may be helpful if the lecturer can be a bit more selective of which information he should present for the students. 
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Exercises}

The excercises were good and concrete both for the project but also for the understanding of the subject.
We found it to be helpful in translating the theoretical knowledge we had into practical knowledge, which made it easier to apply the techniques on our project.
The exercises also helped us understand the terminology of requirement engineering on a higher level.\\

Some suggestions for next year: 

\begin{enumerate}
\item  The first exercise should not be based on the book when it is so hard to get the book in time, maybe a handout instead? 

\item  We would also find it helpful to have the exercises earlier in the course, so we can use the knowledge that is giving to use during the exercises earlier in our project. It was particular notable that the exercise of quality requirements was scheduled after RD1, this made us quite confused over what was expected of use. 
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Laboratory lessons}

Concerning the laboratory lessons, we feel that they were good, interesting and concrete exercises of requirements engineering topics. It was easy for us students to se the connection clearly between the laboratory lessons, the literature and the project and why the laboratory lessons were helpful for deeper understanding of the subject.

The Focal Point laboratory lesson gave us a good insight of the complexity of prioritization and how to handle this complexity. 
We were positively surprised over the tools concerning the laboratory lessons; we found the features of the tools to be both helpful and usable for our project.\\

Here are the different opinions of the group members:


\begin{enumerate}
\item  One opinion amongst some of the group members was that the laboratory lessons tasks were well phrased and that the preparations were pedagogical. The articles that were connected to the preparations were well written and easy to be educated by, and therefore quite interesting and enjoyable to read. 

\item  Some members thought that the tools interface could have been considerable better, and that it made them unnecessarily complex to use.

\item  There were too much bugs in the tools and the fact that it crashed so much made the entire laboratory lesson hard to focus on.
\end{enumerate}

Suggestions of improvements:

\begin{enumerate}
\item  Put the laboratory lesson assignments on the course web before the lesson starts making the students be able to prepare better. 

\item  Having additional laboratory supervisors making the laboratory lessons more efficient for the students. We had on case were a student had to wait for 40 minuts waiting for the assignment to be approved by the supervisor.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{The project}

The project was very appreciated amongst all of the project members. As a pedagogical tool the project is very efficient.

Not only the fact that it demands a deeper understanding of the subject and reflection of the different techniques it also gives us a more clear picture of the expected working process of requirements engineering in our working life. It has given us good practical knowledge when it comes to requirements engineering and the working process.

The project did force us to have many discussions about the techniques and why we should choose what technique. Even though the project has consumed a lot of time we feel quite prepared for the exam based almost only on the knowledge that we have gain from the project.\\

Suggestions of improvements for next year:


\begin{enumerate}
\item  More help with defining the project scope so that it does not overwhelm the students, as it did in our case.

\item  Clearer guidelines, maybe having better defined maximum-minimum limitations etc. 
\end{enumerate}

Because of the project being so time-consuming we feel that it should have more weight to the final grade. Maybe 60\% on the project and 40\% on the exam so it better reflects the time spend on the different parts of the course.

\subsection{Exam problems }

Here are the different opinions of the group members:


\begin{enumerate}
\item  The writing of the exam problems helped them to get started with the study for the exam.

\item  The deadlines were to close, concerning the RD deliveries and the exam problem deadlines. Which gave a sense of stressing thought the exam problem assignment.

\item  The focus of the exam problems was not on a fulfilling level when it came to the structure of the exam problems, from a learning point of view and what is expected of us students to learn. 
\end{enumerate}

Suggestion of improvements


\begin{enumerate}
\item  Having the deadline moved to Friday instead of Wednesday.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Literature}

After being a student at LTH for a while you get used to not always having good course literature. But the general opinion of the group is that Soren Larsens book is pedagogical, structured and evident of what the student needs to learn.

But first and foremost it gives us as student a sense of having a good opportunity to take part of the knowledge that is needed to pass the exam.

The book lacks, as we feel, a bit of relevance due to the fact that many examples are dated. 

Some members thought, although they shared the overall positive opinion of the book, that the book hade much irrelevant content and hade the tendencies to be repetitive.

The compendium is a good complement to the book, it gives the student a good picture of how requirements engineering is used on the relevant market, with its more modern examples.\\

Suggestions of improvements:


\begin{enumerate}
\item  To complement the book with more articles that contains modern examples, making the literature more relevant. But also maybe shifting the focus a bit from the book to an expanded version of compendium.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Video lessons}

We are all in agreement that the video lessons are a good asset for us students, and they have been used by several members during the course. It was hard to start the videos and we feel that a big part of the purpose is lost when you can only reach the videos from school and not from home. Our suggestion is that for next year the students can reach the videos from home as well. 

One member of the group suggests that the information about the lessons being filmed should be shown on the course web, so you can take part of this information before you make your choice to read requirements engineering. As it can be a controversial subject; whether or not the student wants to be filmed.  

\subsection{Additional questions }

\noindent \textbf{The lessons being held in English}\\

The majority of the group members found it to be good that the lectures were held in English. They found that it made it easier to connect the lectures to the literature and that it is more relevant to their future jobs to have a broad knowledge of the terminology in English rather than Swedish. There were opinions that the lecturer switched between the two languages too much. 

The rest of the group found that all though there were no issues of understanding they still felt a knowledge barrier du to the language.\\

\noindent \textbf{Which part of the theory do you want to hear more or less about?}\\

Here are the different opinions of the group members:

\begin{enumerate}
\item  More real modern project examples, which will give us more insight in the requirement engineer's way to work in todays industry.  

\item  Information that gives a clearer picture of the link to the consulting business, within requirement engineering and their way to work would be appreciated.

\item  Introducing how to do a requirement document for a small system, like our project, in the beginning of the course would be both interesting and helpful to our project. 

\item  Some of the group members felt that all of the methods were presented quickly. If the lecturer had left some methods out and more clearly present a few methods instead of just little about everyone, leaving the rest for the students to read about themselves, they would gain more knowledge.

\item  More information about communication and relations and what is important from this point of view to be able to elicit good requirements documentations.

\item  Shorten the introduction part of the first lessons making more time for elicitation and specification to help with the first phase of the project more extensively. 

\item  More information about who the requirement documentation is written for, who should we prioritize to be the main reader of the document? 

\item  Information about the differences between on technique and another and why and when a certain technique is better would be highly interesting to get more information about.
\end{enumerate}


\noindent \textbf{Is the project process okay and sufficiently detailed?}\\

Our experience with the project was that it was extremely time-consuming. But we feel that we hade a hard time to define it, and the project ended up being almost to well worked through to a level of where it grew to big. The project made the entire course to time-consuming and the period of the course was a very stressful period for all of the group members. 
A part of this we blame Bj\"{o}rn Regnell for, for spreading the enthusiasm for the subject too well.
 
But the supervisors could, with their experience, have caught us in an early stage of the project telling us that we should bring the project to a smaller size.

The information that was given to us in general, explaining the assignments was not clear enough. We feel that it will be helpful for us students if the guidelines for the assignments and the project were more clearly formulated. We feel that clearer guidelines would have helped us with the delimitation of the project.
 
A Separate document where all the deadlines are being posted with apparent deadline times and descriptions, would help with understanding when and what is expected of us.

To have access to old projects and a clearer list over what is expected from us for each delivery would also have helped a lot with defining the project.  

More contact and meetings with the supervisor would have been good if the amount of meetings were more flexible. The amount of the meetings should maybe reflect which grade the group strives for and not be as we felt a fixed number. 